Obama holds gay pride reception, vows to overturn 'unjust laws'

[Momentum57]

It's also assault. Which is natural. But illegal. And it ain't exactly something the passing children consent to - and if they do, they're not adult, and can't really consent to getting fecal matter thrown at them.

Comparison is invalid.


It's natural. But when you fuck my cat (he's dead, if you'd tried, you'd get beaten up), my cat has no say. He can't say yes or no.

Again, comparison is invalid.

THE COMPARISON IS INVALID BECAUSE THEY ARE ANIMALS AND I AM A HUMAN! We should endeavor to be more than our animal instincts. We think and can form relations of what would happen if you acted like an animal.

Ignoring the marriage and animal issues for the moment, your main problem is public health and the cost that diseases contracted by gays would increase health care cost/endanger public health/etc. Taking this solely into account- that your reason for disallowing something is based on health care costs and public health- then it is only logical that you would support banning, for example, cigarettes- which meet the same requirements, endangerment of public health (even discounting "secondhand-smoke") and increased healthcare costs to pay for the ailing or aging smokers. What else meets those requirements? Unhealthy food, too little exercise, visiting forgein nations (possibility of carrying virulent disease) etc. To exercise control over something because in increase health care costs and may endanger public health sounds nice but in my mind is frankly totalitarian.

I think what your referring to is my statement that I was against homosexuals. I simply want it in stated that homosexual sex can lead to personal harm. What I said is Homosexual sex has particular health concerns and issues. To have homosexuality be analogous to smoking in which their insurance rates are higher would be proper. You don't think that insurance companies exercise control (higher risk class and premium) over people who are fat ie charge them more or how they give a 'non smokers discount'. Insurance companies even ask if you have visited foreign nations a in cases wont insure or charge more. (in caveat to that its nations who are on the state departments list of bad places that insurance companies are watching for) BUT THATS NOT MY MAIN PROBLEM with gay marrage.

Understand that marriage is a legal definition that implies transference of rights and benefits. This is the major concern that cost billions in tax dollars and benefits payed.

I just want to say I am realistic in this debate. I am only saying that the marriage issue is more than just what either side wants to say; or even have the public understand.

And how about kids who fuck around without a condom? If I'm not mistaken, the Bush regime payed big money for christian organizations to tell kids they should abstain from sex, instead of using a condom, leading to most of them still having sex, but without a condom, and often in using anal cavities instead of the vaginal cavities.

First off skin to skin contact does feel better PERIOD.
That said I can't explain to you how BAD it FEELS to have to think you have an STD. Getting your bore punched as my military friends said where the nurse at my university stuck a swab down my dick. How bad it feels to walk around pacing your room thinking of the medication you will have to take for the rest of your life.

 

[nomix]

THE COMPARISON IS INVALID BECAUSE THEY ARE ANIMALS AND I AM A HUMAN! We should endeavor to be more than our animal instincts. We think and can form relations of what would happen if you acted like an animal.

That is not the point. The point is that homosexual sex is not unatural.

Apart from that, I think the comparison of homosexuality and slinging excrements is quite distasteful.

First off skin to skin contact does feel better PERIOD.
That said I can't explain to you how BAD it FEELS to have to think you have an STD. Getting your bore punched as my military friends said where the nurse at my university stuck a swab down my dick. How bad it feels to walk around pacing your room thinking of the medication you will have to take for the rest of your life.

So, let's abolish sex.

 

[Momentum57]

That is not the point. The point is that homosexual sex is not unatural.

Apart from that, I think the comparison of homosexuality and slinging excrements is quite distasteful.

Your point is that its natural. I agree its natural. My point is that not all which is natural should humans do.

So, let's abolish sex.

You misunderstand. I try to be safer now fewer one night stands and open relationships. In a perfect world for example if you and I wanted to have sex; we would get tested together. After we found out the results we would discuss with a doctor how to minimize damage to anal tissue and hepatitis. Now its not a perfect world and I don't know if gays are anything like girls they would be weirded out by you asking to get tested.

 

[teeb]

I think what your referring to is my statement that I was against homosexuals. I simply want it in stated that homosexual sex can lead to personal harm. What I said is Homosexual sex has particular health concerns and issues.

This assumes that being gay automatically means you're off having gay sex - obviously not the case, just as being homosexual doesn't mean you're having sex all the time.

Stephen Fry has an excellent rant on this point in his autobiography, Moab is my Washpot. Unfortunately I don't have it to hand or I'd quote you.

edit - here's a snippet of it.

All the rest of it, parking your dick up an arse, slurping at a helmet, whipping, frotting, peeing, pooing, squatting like a dog, dressing up in plastic and leather - all these go on in the world of boy and girl, too: and let's be clear about this, they go on more - the numbers make it so. Go into a sex shop, skim some pornography, browse the Internet for a time, talk to someone in the sex industry. You think homosexuality is disgusting? Then it follows, it follows as the night the day, that you find sex disgusting, for there is nothing done between two men or two women that is, by any objective standard, different from that which is done between a man and a woman.

That said I can't explain to you how BAD it FEELS to have to think you have an STD. Getting your bore punched as my military friends said where the nurse at my university stuck a swab down my dick. How bad it feels to walk around pacing your room thinking of the medication you will have to take for the rest of your life.

Off topic somewhat...huh? I had an STD check a couple of months ago, and no dick-swabbing was involved. Urine tests and blood samples, yes, but no stick-dicking.

 

[Momentum57]

This assumes that being gay automatically means you're off having gay sex - obviously not the case, just as being homosexual doesn't mean you're having sex all the time.

I don't buy it just because you love your father, brother or male friends does not mean your gay. Homosexual is those who love men in a sexual manner. I am not saying that you have to walk around with a man out your ass but thats not the point. Im heterosexual I wish I was having sex all the time.

look up revisef65 see that there are really freaky people who want more. Like being able to rip the flesh from their forearm and having their friends jerk off into the wound and not be called crazy.

Off topic somewhat...huh? I had an STD check a couple of months ago, and no dick-swabbing was involved. Urine tests and blood samples, yes, but no stick-dicking.

It's called a genital swab. The difference is you had a check to see if you had an STD; I had a check because my dick was dripping. Diagnostic test see if you have an STD and don't know it.

 

[nomix]

Your point is that its natural. I agree its natural. My point is that not all which is natural should humans do.

As stated, the sexual acts in question are done by heterosexuals as well, and although I agree we shouldn't do all things animals do (I rearly piss on lamp posts) I don't think homosexuality is one of those no-nos.

You misunderstand. I try to be safer now fewer one night stands and open relationships. In a perfect world for example if you and I wanted to have sex; we would get tested together. After we found out the results we would discuss with a doctor how to minimize damage to anal tissue and hepatitis. Now its not a perfect world and I don't know if gays are anything like girls they would be weirded out by you asking to get tested.

And in the end, that's not relevant (read: specific) for homosexual sex.

 

[MattMan]

Here's a question,

Can you accept a church's choice not to marry gays? Not only accept, but truly be ok with it?

discuss

 

[freeferrarisdonotexist]

^I can accept it, in the sense that they are an independent body making a descision which in a free nation they have the right to make. I cannot, however, be ethically "okay" with it, no. My ethics tell me that there is no more reason for homosexuality to be considered a wrong than, say, smoking. It might not be "good for one's health" but it is not morally wrong. If you are attracted to people of the same sex naturally- as I understand some people are- than there is nothing you can do about it but follow your attraction of be abstinent- both, again, your own choice. But neither wrong.

It also bothers me when religions focus on gays when there are far more important things to criticise or provide aid to- murders, wars, etc etc. I would much rather a church spent my offering money on famine relief than on turning people "un-gay", for example.

 

[MattMan]

^I can accept it, in the sense that they are an independent body making a descision which in a free nation they have the right to make. I cannot, however, be ethically "okay" with it, no. My ethics tell me that there is no more reason for homosexuality to be considered a wrong than, say, smoking. It might not be "good for one's health" but it is not morally wrong. If you are attracted to people of the same sex naturally- as I understand some people are- than there is nothing you can do about it but follow your attraction of be abstinent- both, again, your own choice. But neither wrong.

It also bothers me when religions focus on gays when there are far more important things to criticise or provide aid to- murders, wars, etc etc. I would much rather a church spent my offering money on famine relief than on turning people "un-gay", for example.

Morally wrong is completely subjective, and this is just one issue of many that churches have stances on regarding immorality. Sex is a much broader issue than just same sex for most religions, I just happen to ask the question on this one issue. I'm not arguing right or wrong on the issue of homosexuality. Just wondering if the accepting can accept the unaccepting.

 

[Karoug]

My ethics tell me that there is no more reason for homosexuality to be considered a wrong than, say, smoking. It might not be "good for one's health" but it is not morally wrong.

I would guess that smoking in a church isn't allowed either?

 

[nomix]

Here's a question,

Can you accept a church's choice not to marry gays? Not only accept, but truly be ok with it?

discuss

I would see them as a bunch of medival silly-people, but I would accept their right to act in such a manner, in the same way I accept that neo-cons should have the right to present their views and act upon them as long as they don't harm others directly, even if I find neo-conservatism quite silly as well.

If you want to have principles, you need to accept that some views are quite simply moronic, but they have their place in society no matter what.

 

[LeVeL]

I don't really care one way or the other, to be honest. If I was gay, I don't think ('think' being the key word here, as things would maybe be vastly different if I was actually gay) that I'd care whether its called a civil union or marriage. These things are rather trivial, aren't they?

 

[nomix]

Indeed they are. Many European countries have state churches (Norway does, so does Britain, so does a lot of other countries).

When the government runs the church, the government must be able to push policies onto the church. If it's not run by the government, the government should not push its policies onto the church.

 

[Plissken]

Er.. the Church of England is a state church, but it isn't run by the State. The head of the Church of England is the current monarch and she is not allowed any say in the Government beyond ceremonial duties. In fact, the moment she tried to wield any of its theoretical power, the monarchy would be out on its ear in a heartbeat.

 

[Karoug]

^Church of England, cake or death?

 

[Plissken]

[youtube]rZVjKlBCvhg[/youtube]